test
test
Two quick notes:
*ONE emoluments case--not "the" emoluments case--was tossed for lack of standing. This was considered the weakest suit by most legal experts and the court's decision was a) probably the correct one and b) not surprising. At least TWO more emoluments cases, both stronger, are still in progress.
Note that a dismissal for lack of standing is not a decision on the merits of the case itself.
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
present, esq. wrote:
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
And it causes earth tremors.
And it probably causes contamination of ground water. By law, we are not allowed to know what chemicals are used in the fracking process. Dick Cheney made sure that this was part of a bill that lets frackers get away with pumping anything they want into the ground.
But yeah, the killing of millions of innocent people is the main point.
present, esq. wrote:
Two quick notes:
*ONE emoluments case--not "the" emoluments case--was tossed for lack of standing. This was considered the weakest suit by most legal experts and the court's decision was a) probably the correct one and b) not surprising. At least TWO more emoluments cases, both stronger, are still in progress.
Note that a dismissal for lack of standing is not a decision on the merits of the case itself.
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
The emoluments case was brought by 230 Dems in Congress. Pretty significant loss for Pelosi and the rest of the partisan Dem hacks in the House.
present, esq. wrote:
Two quick notes:
*ONE emoluments case--not "the" emoluments case--was tossed for lack of standing. This was considered the weakest suit by most legal experts and the court's decision was a) probably the correct one and b) not surprising. At least TWO more emoluments cases, both stronger, are still in progress.
Note that a dismissal for lack of standing is not a decision on the merits of the case itself.
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
I am obviously an inferior human being.
Please explain the fracking process in detail to me.
How is fracking different than horizontal drilling and why is fracking evil?
present, esq. wrote:
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
Fracking increases the number of oil & gas jobs, which increases prosperity, which raises innovation and entrepreneurship, which encourages people to find new ways to care for themselves and their loved ones.
See how easy that was?
Sally Vix wrote:
Timmy Treadwell wrote:
How quickly you've forgotten the 2018 election which was a massive beatdown for Trump and the Republicans.
The country voted for Republicans in the Senate. Do you not understand that Congress is bicameral?
I guess you missed the blue wave in Congress...
Also, thanks to whoever just registered "semsurr" - must be the same person who originally registered "semsur" after I triggered some liberals.
btw I can keep tacking on an "r" so you might as well go ahead and register every semsurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr possible
way to prove my point on yall being infantile...
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Again, Congress is bicameral. All you Libs want to focus on the House. There was NO blue wave in the Senate.
The country voted for Republicans in the Senate. Do you not understand that Congress is bicameral?
I guess you missed the blue wave in Congress...
semsurrr wrote:
present, esq. wrote:
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
Fracking increases the number of oil & gas jobs, which increases prosperity, which raises innovation and entrepreneurship, which encourages people to find new ways to care for themselves and their loved ones.
See how easy that was?
More fake economic stimulus. If you haven’t noticed, crude prices have been very low and shale companies are getting beaten down in the mkt. They are no longer getting financing and many will likely file for bankruptcy this year. You can guess what will happen to those jobs just like the great coal comeback that was supposed to happen. Yes, I see how easy it is for you to be stupid.
Sally Vix wrote:
present, esq. wrote:
Two quick notes:
*ONE emoluments case--not "the" emoluments case--was tossed for lack of standing. This was considered the weakest suit by most legal experts and the court's decision was a) probably the correct one and b) not surprising. At least TWO more emoluments cases, both stronger, are still in progress.
Note that a dismissal for lack of standing is not a decision on the merits of the case itself.
*Fracking increaases production of fossil fuels (oil and gas), which increases supply, which lowers prices, which encourages people to burn the fossil fuels, which increases air pollution, which kills millions.
The emoluments case was brought by 230 Dems in Congress. Pretty significant loss for Pelosi and the rest of the partisan Dem hacks in the House.
So what will you think about all of this when a Democrat crook comes in and does the same thing? You will be supportive of that person and cal it a witch hunt right?
Trollminator wrote:
I guess you missed the blue wave in Congress...
Remind me, was Trump on the ballot?
Republicans won 2 in the Senate. Democrats got like ~43 House seats. This is nothing extraordinary. Far from a "blue wave" it was touted to be.
But, you do gotta love how like 20+ of those races all somehow went Democrat in the closing hours... Must be all the votes they suddenly 'found' in Broward County
Trollminator wrote:
More fake economic stimulus. If you haven’t noticed, crude prices have been very low and shale companies are getting beaten down in the mkt. They are no longer getting financing and many will likely file for bankruptcy this year. You can guess what will happen to those jobs just like the great coal comeback that was supposed to happen. Yes, I see how easy it is for you to be stupid.
What part of this don't you understand?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-s-becomes-a-net-oil-exporter-for-the-first-time-in-75-yearssemsurrr wrote:
What part of this don't you understand?
www bloomberg com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-s-becomes-a-net-oil-exporter-for-the-first-time-in-75-years
Are you serious? You are defending Trump by posting to a link from Little Mike's MSM rag? OMG!
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The emoluments case was brought by 230 Dems in Congress. Pretty significant loss for Pelosi and the rest of the partisan Dem hacks in the House.
So what will you think about all of this when a Democrat crook comes in and does the same thing? You will be supportive of that person and cal it a witch hunt right?
I don't like crooks period. The Mueller report pretty much exonerated Trump. No collusion. The House was a partisan witchhunt - witness the fact that no Repubs voted for the impeachment. To add to that - there were 17 witnesses and NOT ONE was one that the Repubs brought forward. James Carville has said how crazy the Democratic party has become. Troll - you have seemed like a pretty objective LIberal - do you really want to give health insurance to illegals? Do you want open borders? Do you really support infanticide?
Not going well for the Dems ...
This was the worst week for Democrats since Donald Trump’s election-night shocker of 2016.
Why it matters: In less than 200 hours, Democrats botched Iowa, watched Trump hit an all-time popularity high, debated ousting the DNC chair, and watched a socialist soar and an ideological civil war intensify.
Axios' Margaret Talev reports from New Hampshire that amid real enthusiasm at candidate rallies, there's an underlying unease about unifying the party enough to get the kind of turnout needed to win in November.
What we're hearing: There's a new fatalism in my conversations with Democrats, with many telling me that what once seemed unthinkable — Trump's re-election in November — is now starting to look more likely than ever.
In a CNN segment this morning that included Friday's rosy economic statistics, a graphic asked: "IS TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION PATH WIDENING?"
This is all the more galling to Democrats because they believe he truly sees himself "above the law," as House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff tweeted Friday night, after Trump's impeachment acquittal.
Reality check: A New York Times live fact-check blog on Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday came up with 8 statements labeled "misleading," 7 "lacks"/"needs context," 6 "false," 5 "true," 4 'exaggerated," 3 "mostly true," 2 "partly true," 1 "weighted but mostly true" and 1 "lacks evidence."
The entries became shorthand for how Democrats see the presidency.
Between the lines: Talk to well-wired Republicans and they'll tell you Trump is fully capable of self-sabotage — that enough exhausted voters will finally say: "Just make it stop." But here's why Dems are apoplectic about the terrain:
In the Gallup poll this week that put Trump at 49% approval, a record for his presidency, just 1% had no opinion — leaving few persuadables.
Whoever is ultimately nominated will start in a tremendous hole against a Trump campaign has been relentlessly organized and optimized over the past three years. Axios' Sara Fischer has documented how the Trump campaign is mastering Facebook and Google ads.
The constant Trump rallies serve as an ongoing dry run for Election Day, with eye-popping metrics.
What's next: Recriminations over the botched count of the Iowa caucuses are continuing into a second week. Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in the House, told C-SPAN "Newsmakers" (via AP):
"There are some serious discussions taking place here on Capitol Hill as to what ought to happen at the DNC."
Asked whether DNC chair Tom Perez must go, Clyburn said: "That's a decision for him."
All I saw this week was Trump being more divisive than ever and stirring up the passion of those that was to him removed, which is the majority of the country.
And you know Trump will do something stupid again.
Firing those that testified against him is bad politics.
L L wrote:
All I saw this week was Trump being more divisive than ever and stirring up the passion of those that was to him removed, which is the majority of the country.
And you know Trump will do something stupid again.
Firing those that testified against him is bad politics.
NO, the majority don't want to to be removed.
L L wrote:
All I saw this week was Trump being more divisive than ever and stirring up the passion of those that was to him removed, which is the majority of the country.
And you know Trump will do something stupid again.
Firing those that testified against him is bad politics.
It's good politics. Anything that fires up the base is good politics. The base is all he has, so he needs them to vote.
Alas sally, there’s just not the respect for traitors & fascists & mass-shooters that there was when ‘pubs called the tune for those first two trump years.